Arian christianity as the main christian sect

What if the Ostrogoths did not converted to catholicism, and instead placed a arian pope in Rome and for some butterfly the byzantine empire did not reconquered italy during Justinian reign, could Arian christianity became the "normal" christianity?
 
What if the Ostrogoths did not converted to catholicism, and instead placed a arian pope in Rome and for some butterfly the byzantine empire did not reconquered italy during Justinian reign, could Arian christianity became the "normal" christianity?
First, and that's quite important to point on this question, labelling the non-Nicean beliefs the Goths had between the IVth and the VIth century as Arianism is definitely misleading. Generally "Homeism" is preferred, as a softcore equivalent of Arianism, which never really worked in Romania (in imperial and post-imperial times).

The distinction is important : Homeism was far less radically distinct from Nicean beliefs (at the point that when one switched side, it wasn't considered as a conversion, and didn't required a baptism) : in fact, it was purposely vague about dogmatic issues, and eventually relatively compatible with Niceanism (with an increasing mix with Orthodox beliefs with time, would it be only because Barbarians could switch to Niceanism to Homeism or the reverse : see Suevi or Burgundians).

At the moment Romano-Barbarian kingdoms, as successor of Roman imperium, are stabilized, the main part of the population was (including and critically Roman elites, which giving the role Counts and Bishops had in the Vth century was certainly important) Orthodox Nicean and not Homean.

What prevented Homeism to disappear relatively late IOTL (around the VIIth century) was that it was considered as an identitarian feature marking "Barbarity" (and even there, political events played fully : Alaric II religious policy hints at tentatives of "union"). Barbarians were indeed strongly romanized since the Late Empire, and underwent several identitarian features (such as law, weapons or even clothes) to distinguish themselves from Romans. More the population became a mix between Roman and Barbarian features, more it became irrelevant.

You definitely need a much earlier PoD, with Romans emperors not switching back to favour Niceanism as they did IOTL in the late IVth century (Goths did converted to Homeism because it was favoured, at this time, by the imperial court)
 
Not this : the political and religious role of the Roman pontiff was, altough really limited from what he was with Byzantine, Frankish and eventually medieval Papacy, real.
It why some emperos tried to support papal candidates that had a more conciliating policy with Homeism such as Felix II or Ursinus.

That the role of the bishop of Rome was significantly reduced from what he became eventually, doesn't mean it was just a local business : the Ostrogothic papacy already had a moral dominance over the rest of Latin churches.
 
First, and that's quite important to point on this question, labelling the non-Nicean beliefs the Goths had between the IVth and the VIth century as Arianism is definitely misleading. Generally "Homeism" is preferred, as a softcore equivalent of Arianism, which never really worked in Romania (in imperial and post-imperial times).

The distinction is important : Homeism was far less radically distinct from Nicean beliefs (at the point that when one switched side, it wasn't considered as a conversion, and didn't required a baptism) : in fact, it was purposely vague about dogmatic issues, and eventually relatively compatible with Niceanism (with an increasing mix with Orthodox beliefs with time, would it be only because Barbarians could switch to Niceanism to Homeism or the reverse : see Suevi or Burgundians).

At the moment Romano-Barbarian kingdoms, as successor of Roman imperium, are stabilized, the main part of the population was (including and critically Roman elites, which giving the role Counts and Bishops had in the Vth century was certainly important) Orthodox Nicean and not Homean.

What prevented Homeism to disappear relatively late IOTL (around the VIIth century) was that it was considered as an identitarian feature marking "Barbarity" (and even there, political events played fully : Alaric II religious policy hints at tentatives of "union"). Barbarians were indeed strongly romanized since the Late Empire, and underwent several identitarian features (such as law, weapons or even clothes) to distinguish themselves from Romans. More the population became a mix between Roman and Barbarian features, more it became irrelevant.

You definitely need a much earlier PoD, with Romans emperors not switching back to favour Niceanism as they did IOTL in the late IVth century (Goths did converted to Homeism because it was favoured, at this time, by the imperial court)
The simplest solution is the Council of Nicaea (324) itself as a POD.
 
The simplest solution is the Council of Nicaea (324) itself as a POD.
Of course, but then you might not have a clear distinction : "hardline" Arianism wasn't really in a good position to win over the council, and IMO, you might just end with an in-between between Niceanism and Homeism. It depends, eventually, if the OP asks for a different vibe of Orthodoxy, of if he wants something distinguished (as clearly distinct is rather out) from it to eventually win over in spite of the Council.

I was myself rather thinking at, possibly, a timely death of Theodosius which would allow Valentinian II to undergo his religious policies, with Arbogast and the western armies having maybe more reasons to support an Homeist emperor rather than your average traditionalist as Eugenius.
But there is probably more PoDs than that to save imperial Homeism.
 
Of course, but then you might not have a clear distinction : "hardline" Arianism wasn't really in a good position to win over the council, and IMO, you might just end with an in-between between Niceanism and Homeism.
I was myself rather thinking at, possibly, a timely death of Theodosius which would allow Valentinian II to undergo his religious policies, with Arbogast and the western armies having maybe more reasons to support an Homeist emperor rather than your average traditionalist as Eugenius.
But there is probably more PoDs than that to save imperial Homeism.

Ok, so what PoD is needed to have Hardline arianism to be the main christian sect?
 
Of course, but then you might not have a clear distinction : "hardline" Arianism wasn't really in a good position to win over the council, and IMO, you might just end with an in-between between Niceanism and Homeism. It depends, eventually, if the OP asks for a different vibe of Orthodoxy, of if he wants something distinguished (as clearly distinct is rather out) from it to eventually win over in spite of the Council.

I was myself rather thinking at, possibly, a timely death of Theodosius which would allow Valentinian II to undergo his religious policies, with Arbogast and the western armies having maybe more reasons to support an Homeist emperor rather than your average traditionalist as Eugenius.
But there is probably more PoDs than that to save imperial Homeism.
Sounds good. I've not heard the term Homeism before. What's the derivation? Nicaea would have made it all too easy.
 
Ok, so what PoD is needed to have Hardline arianism to be the main christian sect?
No idea. Maybe, but I'm not sure there, a later adoption of Christianisation : Constantine more or less took the matter into his hands and transformed a local council into something much bigger, siding with non-arianists because they were the lesser damage to religious unity.

So, if we have a relatively weaker emperor adopting Christianity after that Arius managed to not only formalize but as well widespread his ideas; even there I'd expect something like the non-eucumenical council of Antioch, as in a compromise, but one that would favour Arius' ideas.
 
Sounds good. I've not heard the term Homeism before. What's the derivation? Nicaea would have made it all too easy.
It comes from Homoìos (similar), as its followers proclaimed that Christ was similar to God, without digging too much into the matter, and bit more focused on Bible rather than tradition (altough I wonder how much it was true for Goths from the Vth onwards, giving the synodal needs).

Maybe you know them as Acacians : Bruno Dumézil generally use this name to stress the "compatibility" of Barbarian rulers and groups with the Roman population in religious matters. (Altough I do not remember if he does in his thesis : Conversion et liberté dans les royaumes barbares Ve – VIIIe siècles)
Or was it Geary? I'm not sure.

EDIT : Wait, maybe Ian Wood. Almost sure he does use it. It does regularily pop out in publications I have about religion in Gaul and Spain, at least.
 
Last edited:
Ah, maybe someone would wonder (legitimally) why Barbarian kings wouldn't impose Homeism on their own from the Vth century onwards.
While the necessity of keeping a distinct Barbarian identity (both for political and military reasons) was important until the point differenciating oneself from a population that claimed to be Barbarian as well (for prestige, but as well fiscal and political reasons) became irrelevant. Arguably, it played as well a geopolitical role, as it allowed Homean kingdoms to distinguish themselves from the Roman Empire (of Constantinople) explaining the Maurician policy in Mediterranean sea (basically supporting Orthodox rulers against Homeans), or the late support of Homeism by Lombards.

There, the stress on continuity between the Late Empire and the Barbarian kingdoms is useful : while Franks inherited the imperium in Belgica (then all Gaul) and find a large support into enforcing Niceanism against Goths (while Alaric II tried, a bit too late and not enough, to find a compromise on religious grounds with his own Nicean clergy) in a Gaul that was relatively homogenous religiously-wise.
It was a bit different in Ostrogothic Italy (more diverse religiously), where kings tought themselves as well as continuators of the roman management, which had abandoned persecutions as utterly unefficient, and while religious freedom is too modern of a concept to be appliable there, it was (as Dumézil propose) some "right to difference" in a post-imperial Roman culture, whom kings were stewards. It more or less went down with the Gothic wars, as Lombards kings saw in fierce Homeism a way to fend off Roman influence.

The only real tentative, not to Homeize the kingdom, but to fight back the Nicean clergy, was made during Huneric's reign and it was more a matter of dealing with a strong counter-power (Institutional christianism was particularily strong in Africa). Victor of Vita had a field day about it on his chronicles, but it was not as devastating or even religiously motivated as he made it.
 
What if the Ostrogoths did not converted to catholicism, and instead placed a arian pope in Rome and for some butterfly the byzantine empire did not reconquered italy during Justinian reign, could Arian christianity became the "normal" christianity?
A Germanized Hunnic Empire which uses the Gothic alphabet establishes itself in Europe. Franks and Anglo-Saxons also convert to Arian Christianity.
 
Do it earlier. Kill off Athanasius and Hilary of Arles. Without the example of these men, Pope Liberius probably completely capitulates to the Eastern Emperor (instead of mostly fighting in Athanasius' side though he arguably signed an Arianized creed.)

Later Roman Emperors, unless they are really pious, would realize that semi-arianism is more conducive to stability and will illegalize Nicene Christianity.

Knock on effects are tremendous. For one, you kill both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. A heretic Pope approving of a council that contradicts Nicea undoes the Papacy. Furthermore, without Nicea reigning supereme and butterflying away Constantinople I, Orthodoxy lacks the foundation of "doctrinal consensus" to appeal to. The result is Christianity will suffer many schisms and probably break into regional churches everywhere. Not a Protestant Reformation for sure, but this has interesting effects when the Germanic tribes take places over. They will essentially try to impose a foreign Christianity each time. This turns Christianity completely into a national religion, which IOTL it really was not even though it was propped up by the state, simply because it transcended borders. Not ITTL.
 
Top